well, you say that...it may not represent the 100% correlation a scientist seeks but its a good fit...and one which you and your community(depending on your age) would have been advocating not too long ago as the best training aid available....

mine generally correlates pretty well with effort

so not really like reading tea leaves

of course we may read a sport scientist in 30 years debunking your current theories as tea leaves

well, you say that...it may not represent the 100% correlation a scientist seeks but its a good fit...and one which you and your community(depending on your age) would have been advocating not too long ago as the best training aid available....

mine generally correlates pretty well with effort

so not really like reading tea leaves

of course we may read a sport scientist in 30 years debunking your current theories as tea leaves

What current theories have I proposed?

sorry..not specifically you...perceived scientific opinion...it changes over time and whilst, in this case, techniques have improved (power), doesn't mean there was a decent scientific basis for its adoption (hrm)

HR belts can be notoriously dodgy. There is no way anyone can look at that sort of data seriously and draw factual conclusions and I'm no big fan of Froome either. As far as the HR/Power data being removed this is standard practise for a lot of pro's especially GC guys.

well, you say that...it may not represent the 100% correlation a scientist seeks but its a good fit...and one which you and your community(depending on your age) would have been advocating not too long ago as the best training aid available....

mine generally correlates pretty well with effort

so not really like reading tea leaves

of course we may read a sport scientist in 30 years debunking your current theories as tea leaves

What current theories have I proposed?

sorry..not specifically you...perceived scientific opinion...it changes over time and whilst, in this case, techniques have improved (power), doesn't mean there was a decent scientific basis for its adoption (hrm)

Thanks for clarifying.

Yes, the findings of science evolve as new research and better data is added. Nevertheless there is often a disconnect between what science actually reports and what many (lay) people interpret it to mean or in how they apply it, or more to the point, the way they over hype the utility or efficacy of something, usually on the basis of cherry picked information which suits whatever narrative they are pushing. We see it all the time in all walks of life (e.g. supplements).

HR has some utility in training (if you have nothing else and for guiding sub threshold mostly steady state effort, even then it's debatable since we always have perceived exertion) but importantly it also has significant limitations to its utility and this is what is often overlooked. It's not that great for interpreting variable and higher intensity effort, and of course is subject to influence by many things other than how hard you happen to be pedalling.

It's a pretty dull tool, interpret it with due care.

In the case of the posted chart, I see a long relatively steady endurance ride with some natural terrain variability (HR average of 105bpm) with perhaps one hit out along the way but I wouldn't be making much more of it than that.

thehog wrote:The heartrate belt slipped off in the GSK testing, later on ride London it slipped off again as Velon were transmitting it to TV. In one article he explained his max to be 174, his book 165, the Ventoux leaked file was at 161 during his seated accelerations and slows downs. The 2007 fax states 161.

Considering this is Froome nothing adds up.

I know this does all sound horribly convenient in the context of the overall suspicion surrounding Froome, but this is one set of excuses i'm ready to accept.

Simply because i and most other people who use HR monitors during rides will know that this is exactly what happens. Especially during high intensity efforts....sweat builds up, belts become damp and lose grip, contact patches are lost, and readings just go haywire. Froome is using exactly the same equipment as us mortals in this regard.

As i said earlier, most things about Froome don't add up. This for me is one of the rare things that do.

The Ventoux video with heartrate and power transposed doesn’t add up. Period.

On that specifically we agree. That remains one of my favourite sci fi videos

thehog wrote:The heartrate belt slipped off in the GSK testing, later on ride London it slipped off again as Velon were transmitting it to TV. In one article he explained his max to be 174, his book 165, the Ventoux leaked file was at 161 during his seated accelerations and slows downs. The 2007 fax states 161.

Considering this is Froome nothing adds up.

I know this does all sound horribly convenient in the context of the overall suspicion surrounding Froome, but this is one set of excuses i'm ready to accept.

Simply because i and most other people who use HR monitors during rides will know that this is exactly what happens. Especially during high intensity efforts....sweat builds up, belts become damp and lose grip, contact patches are lost, and readings just go haywire. Froome is using exactly the same equipment as us mortals in this regard.

As i said earlier, most things about Froome don't add up. This for me is one of the rare things that do.

The Ventoux video with heartrate and power transposed doesn’t add up. Period.

On that specifically we agree. That remains one of my favourite sci fi videos

So we can bin that video under useless?

thanks for clarifying

The data came from the raw powermeter source file. It was transposed over the top of the video. School up RJ.

whilst i accept the limitations as set out...it is still of interest...i think we can agree the max of 184 is not a belt slippage...its the recorded data (with the flaws and limitation as set out) of a ride. However its way off his previously reported max...I've used garmin, cardiosport and polar over the years...and all have recorded ballpark the same figure give of take a beat or two....

I'm surprised that a pro who gets an HRM measuring so far off his actual rate hasn't binned it for one that works...........

In my experience as the sweat builds and your chest is expanding and contracting more under heavy breathing of big efforts, the HR readings can go a bit high sometimes outdoors. I don't race with a Head Unit, but I do at a 1.5hr Tuesday night Training Crit every week in the summer and several times you'll look downand think you're ill as the reading is just way too high. It can last a few seconds or a few minutes. My max HR is 174 and i've regularly seen it peaking around 190bpm and sometimes even 190bmp when i'm not even close to maximum perceived effort or high watts for a sustained period. You really just learn to take HR & Power with a pinch of salt when analysing the data in Training Peaks or whatever and smooth it out to get a more realistic idea. End of the day it's precise enough technology to track your progress if it's repeatable and that's all that matters long-term for training. The whole claim of things being +-2% accurate for HR monitors and Power Meters is based on a snapshot against a known power and HR, not how accurate it is with itself over the duration of a ride.

Here's a comparison between a HR Strap & HR watch on the road in the real world.

samhocking wrote:In my experience as the sweat builds and your chest is expanding and contracting more under heavy breathing of big efforts, the HR readings can go a bit high sometimes outdoors. I don't race with a Head Unit, but I do at a 1.5hr Tuesday night Training Crit every week in the summer and several times you'll look downand think you're ill as the reading is just way too high. It can last a few seconds or a few minutes. My max HR is 174 and i've regularly seen it peaking around 190bpm and sometimes even 190bmp when i'm not even close to maximum perceived effort or high watts for a sustained period. You really just learn to take HR & Power with a pinch of salt when analysing the data in Training Peaks or whatever and smooth it out to get a more realistic idea. End of the day it's precise enough technology to track your progress if it's repeatable and that's all that matters long-term for training. The whole claim of things being +-2% accurate for HR monitors and Power Meters is based on a snapshot against a known power and HR, not how accurate it is with itself over the duration of a ride.

Here's a comparison between a HR Strap & HR watch on the road in the real world.

Here's the same two HR Monitors indoors on a Turbo Trainer.

is the smoothed turbo not just because of the nature of riding on a turbo...i.e. no gradients to push on or free wheel down and no wind or junctions, or potholes or etc etc

gillan1969 wrote:...I've used garmin, cardiosport and polar over the years...and all have recorded ballpark the same figure give of take a beat or two....

I'm surprised that a pro who gets an HRM measuring so far off his actual rate hasn't binned it for one that works...........

Same brands and some others too here except that all mine have recorded everything between like 35 and 240 (175 hrmax mine and highest of who I've coached like 205) There is just so much variables that can cause false reading and they can be tight linear spikes or pretty rounded sometimes too. You can wet the band and go for a ride and it works fine but if it's easy first, band can dry and you put it so that it doesn't compress your chest too much but just enough because else it's just so p in the a. And you go low on hooks or drops and when you exhale your strap gets bit loose and your jersey is dry and makes static electricity and numbers go like bang. And so many other cases..

Nobody talking about editing raw data on a say WKO or GC, hr editing and torque adjustment and sharing it then

There's no smoothing Gillan, that is the raw data. There's way more interference outside and of course you tend to move your body much less on a turbo and of course no rough ground and road buzz etc probably makes a difference with the HR watch as nearer the shaking of the bars on the road. I would never look at my HR or Power and take it 100% accurate. As long as it's repeatable each day, that's fine.

thehog wrote:So what you,re saying that in a 4 and half hour raw data file the heart didn’t work properly at the exact time when Froome decided to attack at 800w multiple times?

Riiiigggght. Excuse me while I head to the political forum and blame 9/11 on the government

The problem is simply your ignorance on what HR actually is. The first obvious problem: a 20-30 minute climb is done at VO2max anyway, so HR is maxed out all the time. The second problem: attacks at 800W are fueled from anaerobic, so HR lags considerably behind and as before, if you're at VO2max anyway, you will not see it move at all.

Anaerobic efforts only show up in HR with considerable delay and if you are aerobically tapped out anyway, not at all. This should be obvious to you if you ever raced or did structured training.

thehog wrote:So what you,re saying that in a 4 and half hour raw data file the heart didn’t work properly at the exact time when Froome decided to attack at 800w multiple times?

Riiiigggght. Excuse me while I head to the political forum and blame 9/11 on the government

The problem is simply your ignorance on what HR actually is. The first obvious problem: a 20-30 minute climb is done at VO2max anyway, so HR is maxed out all the time. The second problem: attacks at 800W are fueled from anaerobic, so HR lags considerably behind and as before, if you're at VO2max anyway, you will not see it move at all.

Anaerobic efforts only show up in HR with considerable delay and if you are aerobically tapped out anyway, not at all. This should be obvious to you if you ever raced or did structured training.

Thank you, i was trying to be polite in my earlier exchanges on the subject but now you mention it...

thehog wrote:So what you,re saying that in a 4 and half hour raw data file the heart didn’t work properly at the exact time when Froome decided to attack at 800w multiple times?

Riiiigggght. Excuse me while I head to the political forum and blame 9/11 on the government

The problem is simply your ignorance on what HR actually is. The first obvious problem: a 20-30 minute climb is done at VO2max anyway, so HR is maxed out all the time. The second problem: attacks at 800W are fueled from anaerobic, so HR lags considerably behind and as before, if you're at VO2max anyway, you will not see it move at all.

Anaerobic efforts only show up in HR with considerable delay and if you are aerobically tapped out anyway, not at all. This should be obvious to you if you ever raced or did structured training.

but your max at 20 mins is not your absolute max...which you canm't possibly sustain for 20 mins...we're talking here about absolute max are we not?

samhocking wrote:There's no smoothing Gillan, that is the raw data. There's way more interference outside and of course you tend to move your body much less on a turbo and of course no rough ground and road buzz etc probably makes a difference with the HR watch as nearer the shaking of the bars on the road. I would never look at my HR or Power and take it 100% accurate. As long as it's repeatable each day, that's fine.

what I meant was that because of the nature of road riding then your heart rate will always be going up and down due to easing off in tailwinds, pushing a bit in climbs...slowing for cars, junctions, deer, other cyclists, crap road surface, puddles etc etc etc...i.e.the raw data is always going up and down

What is "absolute max" supposed to be? The absolute max is probably what you can sprint for 10-12 seconds, but then there is an absolute max for 5 minutes, 20 minutes, 1hr, ... strictly decreasing.

The point is that heart rate only measures aerobic utilization, and for short endurance events, aerobic utilization is more or less 100% all the time. Elite runners do 1 mile runs at the same HR as 3 mile events, but it's not the same level of effort at all because you're missing anaerobic power which HR can't show you.